| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |
| Date: | 2003-11-17 10:28:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1069064914.20092.41.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian kirjutas E, 17.11.2003 kell 03:58:
>
> OK, let me give you my logic and you can tell me where I am wrong.
>
> First, how many backend can a single write process support if all the
> backends are doing insert/update/deletes? 5? 10? Let's assume 10.
> Second, once we change write to write/fsync, how much slower will that
> be? 100x, 1000x? Let's say 10x.
>
> So, by my logic, if we have 100 backends all doing updates, we will need
> 10 * 100 or 1000 writer processes or threads to keep up with that load.
> That seems quite excessive to me from a context switching and process
> overhead perspective.
>
> Where am I wrong?
Maybe you meant 100/10 instead of 100*10 ;)
------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-11-17 10:43:28 | Re: start of transaction |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-11-17 10:19:06 | Re: start of transaction (was: Re: [PERFORM] Help with |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-11-17 14:28:22 | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-11-17 08:15:49 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] SRA Win32 sync() code |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-17 15:32:11 | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-17 09:05:45 | improve psql lo_* help |